User:Thekingguy7/Evaluate an Article
 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.
Sources and ReferencesA Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. |
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I chose this article because I encountered a grey fox on a camping trip in California over the summer and would love to learn more about them. My overall impression of this article is that it is well written, but that it seems to me that more information is out there that could be added.
Evaluate the article
[edit](Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)
Lead Section: I thought the lead section was very good. The first sentence would immediately identify what the animal is to so someone who doesn't know about it. The further you read the intro, the more you start to get an overview.
Content: All of the content in the article was relevant. I am not sure if the article deals with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.
Tone and Balance: The article is written with a neutral tone of view. It was all written in the least persuasive way possible.
Sources and References: The sources are quite thorough, current, and backup the information in the article. Most of the links to the articles work, though some articles are less sound than others. Source 22, "Foxes World," seems unreliable.
Organization and Writing Quality: The article has a good flow and the writing is free of major errors.
Images and Media: The images enhance understanding of the subject and are laid out in an appealing way. Overall, a great use of images.
Talk Page Discussion: From the talk page section, it is unclear if the article is part of any WikiProjects. Most of the discussion in this section has to do with the diet of the Grey Fox and wether a line in the article that states the shape of the fox's eyes are ovular is factual.
Overall Impression: I think this is mid-tier article. It's merits are that it is moderately fleshed out and has lots of reliable sources to back it up, but there is hardly any discussion around the article to verify wether or not some of the facts stated in the article are true or not.